Recently in craft Category

A suggestive notion that comes up from time to time in Tibetan Buddhist teacher Chogyam Trungpa’s writing and talks, which may seem contradictory, or at least unfamiliar, is “non-mastery.” Mostly we’re conditioned to consider mastery desirable, particularly in craft, and in most work-related endeavors, as we’re accustomed to hearing about (and respecting) master builders, masterful musicians, martial arts masters, yoga masters, spiritual masters. The last, especially, Trungpa would consider particularly susceptible to spiritual materialism—the use of spiritualist techniques to strengthen and solidify ego, to feel better about oneself, to gain a sense of importance through spiritual attainment, to develop special powers that enable you to seduce or manipulate others—and ultimately delude yourself even beyond what a mundane, non-spiritual materialist would be capable of.

So, non-mastery: being fully at ease with things as they are; not irritably chasing after resolution of contradictions (or after “closure”); basic comfort with oneself in spite of imperfections (though not neglectful of efforts to meet challenges skillfully).

The subtlety here is that skillful response to challenges is still important, the ability to solve problems with wisdom, insight, compassion, is a crucial capacity (and here I’m elaborating on Trungpa’s direct statements, but it’s all true). But don’t get stuck on how great you are because of what you can do. Non-mastery.

Toward repairing the world: it’s up to us to maintain it, continually correcting our course—not for the sake of personal gain (although through the making of things there’s an exchange that’s sustaining[1]) but because of loving the world fiercely and wanting to make something that is a gift for its benefit, an offering, which operates by awakening delight in beings who encounter it and inhabit it.

Mastery is not finality but refinement. Acknowledgment and recognition for doing something well are helpful but too easily mistaken for an end-state or goal (useful but not sufficient). 

Restraint provides a necessary resistance to being overwhelmed by the vastness of the task. Allowing the action to arise without becoming an actor may be tricky, but ultimately there's no other way to do something as a full offering. By getting out of your own way you can become receptive to something that helps move toward fuller awareness. Is this completion? So far no, only further development.

Mastery is only relevant if it develops with this attitude of moving forward, not getting stuck. Getting stuck is inevitable at certain points and getting unstuck is part of the process of developing mastery, but isn’t itself mastery. Mastery does imply a certain facility with disentangling.

 

The term mastery also implies a power relationship—think of slavery. Domination is essentially a non-ecological attitude.[2] But considering the origin of this term, we can see some ambiguity: the word “dome” (which, as well as referring to a hemispherical roof, is also the French and German term for cathedral), comes from Latin domus and Greek dōma, meaning house, and shares the same root as dominion, domain, dominate and domestic (and also danger and despot). So somewhere along the way, we might find a positive (or at least neutral) connotation—something like “householding.” Of course, in the cultures that produced this idea, a householder was thought of as the authority—the master of his domain—and the most developed moral codes of the day required ethical treatment of one's slaves but did not question the existence of slavery. [3]

The phrase from Genesis that’s often been cited as a philosophical basis for exploiting the earth, “You shall have dominion over all the living beings” seems to be a mistaken translation. The Hebrew prefix a (b’) attached to a word means “with”—not “over.” So that statement more reasonably reads, “You shall rule in relation with all the living beings”—a much more ecological statement.



[1] And of course it’s important to be compensated and rewarded for one’s labor.

[2] Though it’s not unrepresented in other animal species, and popular interpretations of Darwin contend that competition for resources is the law of nature—but now we recognize that within most species, and even among different species, cooperation is the norm, and that predator-prey relations tend to operate in dynamic balance, unless disrupted by, for example, human-induced habitat destruction.

[3] The Latin word for God, Dominus (typically translated as “Lord”) means something like Master of the World.

Common Sense

| Write Comment | No TrackBacks

Craft is, basically, common sense. Ingenuity is certainly a factor (anyway, it’s a close relative of common sense, fully complementary). Following a simple procedure, perhaps repeatedly, requires a basic degree of attention combined with a clear understanding of the process, perhaps with reference to the first face of tradition—an accepted process, the way it’s been done (successfully) before.[1] Many of the tasks involved in building a house occur at this level, requiring basic attention and this simplest form of common sense.

Even the simplest procedures, though, demand a bit more ingenuity: knowing when to stop adding water to the concrete mix, for example, or determining how much of that mix will be needed to fill the forms. These are also matters of common sense, with a bit of calculation and a notion, from experience, of what’s workable. Ahead of mixing the concrete, though, determining the dimensions the formwork needs to have, building and bracing the forms, installing rebar and presetting foundation bolts, all require careful calculation in addition to an understanding of the loadbearing requirements—again, based on experience and knowledge, both of yours and of others (structural engineers and building inspectors, for example), thorough familiarity with building codes and safety considerations.

These are all, in fact, further refinements of common sense.

Ecology is common sense. It is self-evident that one thing influences another, that no being exists separately from another in any definite sense, that interrelated systems are interwoven with other interrelated systems. Plants draw energy from the sun and carbon dioxide from the air to produce sugar and oxygen that animals eat and breathe. Bacteria and fungus feed on decaying plants and animals to replenish the soil. Life is intricately bound in other life. It is self-evident, to anyone paying attention, that disruptions of ecological balance are only self-correcting to a point, before leading to further disruptions. An aesthetic that values common sense will recognize the importance of reducing our disruptive impact, of implementing our craft to the best of our understanding.  



[1] This aspect of tradition is the essence of education: learning from someone else’s mistakes and discoveries.

We’re neurologically, physiologically predisposed to engage our senses, experience a fullness, in natural settings—overwhelmed by the vastness of the ocean but also startled, cleansed, awakened by so many minute details—a nook in the woods, a perch by the river, the enclosure of a cave, the prominence of a mountain peak. Getting there is part of making room for the shift in awareness, part of the preparation—the exertion, the effort, quickening the pulse, breaking a sweat in the climb—clearing away heaviness, stagnation, the goop that otherwise mires us in confusion or resentment. Immersion in a stream or the ocean is often part of this clearing process. Simply exercising may accomplish some of this physiologically, but jogging on a treadmill (especially with headphones piping in the morning stock market report) isn’t really reaching it.

Human-made religious structures, the most basic, intuitive varieties at least, begin with making altars and offerings. These gestures of relatedness and gratitude (or possibly of appeasement—feeding a hungry beast so it doesn’t make your life yet more difficult) can be a way of thanking the place for being welcoming—a gracious host—and attempting to give something back. This in turn becomes a mandate in many cultures to become gracious hosts to our own guests, this being the most direct means of returning the favor that is simply the fact of our existence—the original act of generosity.

Witness Trauma

| Write Comment | No TrackBacks
Original Forest

I lived for the first half of 1989 in a tiny cabin in the heavily wooded mountains of Southern Oregon, a mile or so by well-rutted dirt road and footpath above a ghost town called Golden and a cold stream known as Coyote Creek. The nearest town with a post office was another three or four miles away (and I didn’t know anyone there or particularly want to, so I didn’t hang around much[1]).

I needed a place to go where I could be still for a while. I’d lost two friends the previous year and was at a bit of a loss for what to do, where to go. After finishing college I’d taken a ride from Portland to Alaska to work in the fisheries of Valdez, Prince William Sound (which were more or less intact when I was there, until an incompetent swindler let 12 million barrels of oil drain out of the tanker he nominally controlled that following spring, as I stewed in my canyon), and come back without any plan to speak of.

Ecstatic moments and grim moments swirled into a tangled knot, though not necessarily a tight knot. In fact there was a good deal of looseness in the uncertain antics of those days.

For lack of a better plan, and because I was distrustful of plans at that point, I let myself follow the pull toward the anti-industrial protests of the so-called timber wars of the Northwest. We came from everywhere, true, but this is where we belonged: in the woods, willing to sacrifice comfort and safety to hinder the twisted intentions of junk-bond liquidators and petty tyrants as best we could, by legal means or otherwise.[2] One friend I met at a small gathering, and then at the road blockade that followed, invited me to stay at his place above Coyote Creek. By the middle of January I was ready for a place where I could unravel.

 -----

The dirt road snuck in through shady mixed conifer and second-growth Douglas fir trees (this south slope had been logged in the 1950s), and crossed a small wooden bridge at a level spot along a year-round stream fed by clear springs higher up. From here a narrow path wound its way up the small bowl-shaped canyon. My cabin was about halfway up the slope, a half-hour walk from the bottom, in a small clearing with a plywood platform to one side and the steep drop into the canyon at the back. The view from cabin and deck was immense, multidimensional, deeper than most anything else I’ve encountered. The entire west and north slopes of the canyon were alive with a quiet stand of the original forest, the ancient trees that once blanketed the entire region, of which only scattered islands remain.

There was snow on the ground when I arrived. I had never set foot in this place before but it all felt familiar and right. I had no trouble finding my way up the winding path. When I stepped between two trees near the top, I sensed that I had passed through some sort of barrier, into a set-aside zone, a sanctuary, where everything was somehow more present than in the outside world. In one sense I’d come here to hide, but from the first moments it was clear that in this place, in my grieving and uncertainty, I would also be greeting someone or something with a fullness I might have barely glimpsed before. Certainly not with the intensity I would soon encounter.

  -----

No electricity, no phone. No running water to my cabin, though a two-minute walk brought me to an old bath house, where a spigot piped water down from the steady spring.

Removing myself so completely from the world of social interaction and technology[3] gave me an opportunity to tune in to the rhythms and beings of the place, to sharpen my senses. To live deliberately (as an old surveyor from the Northeast once said), though not really free of the ebb and flow of intense yearning—which would, however, subside more or less of its own accord, tiresome to the point of irrelevance, after a few hours or days. I learned to meditate, forced by necessity (though I would have benefited from the sort of training I later entered in Thailand), learned to discern the varieties of breezes and degrees of agitation or calmness they inspired.

I stayed at Golden for six months, broken up by some trips to visit friends but mostly alone in my canyon. During those months I would walk or catch a ride into town (really little more than a stagecoach stop) a few miles away for supplies every few days, sometimes not for a week or two or three. I spent my hours walking, reading, carving faces in small scraps of wood, just watching the trees or the hawks, making a fire, foraging for edible plants, cooking rice, dismantling fences, writing, gardening. I left after the place was destroyed by logging, after I determined I had learned as much as I was able to from solitude and desolation.

  -----

The presence of that forest was indescribable.

I would go for days, sometimes weeks at a time with no human contact. The dimensions of loneliness were unfathomable. Yet somehow, within a couple of weeks after returning from any excursions into more inhabited zones, I would awaken to a presence in the place. A Presence. Really. A pervasive experience of communion with a vast ancient being contained in that physical canyon, a moody jealous majestic empress,[4] a non-human non-animal life whose intense demand for attention sharpened all senses. Comfort and discomfort intermingled. No spite, no judgment, but deep sorrow and yearning as well as ticklish whispers and giggles.

Yes, the human mind concocts fantastic visions when stressed by extreme solitude. Yes, she was real. Yes, she was there. And then mercenaries of absent industrialists killed her.

  -----

It’s not as if the place had been untouched by humans, even by possibly inconsiderate, self-serving humans in the past. For a few thousand years, at least, the area had been within the wider hunting and fishing grounds of peoples who were displaced and largely destroyed between 1803 and the 1950s, including through an official, recent policy of “termination” which stripped tribal status from most groups in the region, essentially to impoverish and demoralize the people whose ancestors had been there, and who were the legitimate inhabitants of the place.[5]

Coyote Creek had been mined by Euro-Americans since the 1850s, and the town of Golden was incorporated in 1890. At some point this spot on the creek had a population of two hundred or so, and was known for having two churches (one of which still stands) and no saloons.[6] Gold mining continued to be the mainstay of the small settlements here well into the 20th century.[7] By the 1950s logging had surpassed gold mining economically. But it was not until the late 1980s (and particularly the first week of May, 1989) that some of the steeper slopes of the original forest were cut.

  -----

I’m not opposed to cutting trees. As a carpenter and woodworker, I acknowledge my complicity in the practice, and that using wood can be reasonable and justifiable, often preferable to other alternatives. But cutting trees is vastly different from destroying forests, or damaging otherwise living places. Most of the pressure toward mining timber lands (as opposed to thinning or selective cutting, which need not be so destructive) is of course economic, and intertwined with national and international market dynamics. It has much more to do with the insane overdevelopment of speculative housing sprawl that paved over so much farmland and otherwise disrupted formerly living places in the past 40 or 50 years—now revealed as the land pollution that it is—than with any interest in preserving local jobs (or really anything else local), as the conflict was unfortunately framed during much of that era.

On a smaller scale, it is truly possible to work more deliberately and considerately, in a way that is less destructive of places and resources, with attention to the origins of the materials and to better ways of using them. This is interrelated with designing particular structures that integrate the needs of the users and the place, that have a feeling of aliveness, that provide a sense of refuge—that can truly become homes—the crafting of dwellings.

 -----

In the two decades since I left that place, I've meandered and bounced down a few different roads. But I always come back to that moment, that sense of presence and sanctuary, even though the literal place was destroyed. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I left part of myself there, and at the same time some piece of it got stuck in me. 



[1] There was a pay phone in front of the general store that I’d make use of every week or two or three, mostly to reassure my parents I was doing fine—which I suppose I was, overall, though it’s much more convoluted than that.

[2] My profound affection for the people I knew in those moments has not diminished, though most of them have since drifted or faded from my known world.

[3] Though I did have a battery-powered radio I turned on occasionally, which informed me, among other things, of the oil spill in Prince William Sound and of the demonstrations and massacre in Tiananmen Square.

[4] And I do recognize that using feminine pronouns here has intimations of an old and not necessarily accurate convention. I’m not contending that nature is somehow more female, and culture somehow more male. I’m only referring to this particular presence in this particular place, based on getting to know a living being directly, and sensing the character of that being as feminine. Other people who have known the place concur with this perception. I realize there’s no objective standard for evaluating the truth of the assertion, or of my direct experience whatsoever. I can only say that many people through the ages, of practically every background, have had similar experiences, and that certain features of these experiences will be recognizable as familiar, to the point where consistencies could be charted. What makes it possible to experience such phenomena is not a matter of abandoning a scientific skepticism—in fact that remains a useful navigational tool—but simply clearing away the chatter of a restless mind.

[5] Though some groups have revived in recent decades (notably the Klamath and Modoc, themselves confederations of smaller bands), for the most part the end of the world is something that already happened for the indigenous peoples of the region. Of the Takelma, Latagwa and Calapooya who likely traversed this creek and canyons—there were once salmon up here, within the memory of living residents—and tracked deer through the hills, the Latagwa at least are resisting reports of their own demise.

[6]  “Perhaps unique among Western annals” according to the Josephine County Historical Society, though it seems fair to suspect other settlements in the West may have been similarly influenced by Temperance Societies and their ilk. The extant church building was originally established by a group of Campbellites, who were apparently among the millennialist sects of the 1870s (largely in the northeastern U.S.), who believed either that Jesus would arrive momentarily or that he in fact had already arrived—though he only appeared to a select few.

[7] “Placer activity on Coyote Creek began in the 1850s. Abandoning these claims during the Idaho Gold Rush of 1860, the men returned to find them being worked by about five hundred Chinese for ten cents per day plus rice. The Chinese contractor yielded possession.”

Take Your Time

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
The whole neurotic business of striving toward one accomplishment after another with no pause for a cigarette (at least since tobacco lost its status as a valid pastime--makes me wonder if there's still an Israeli brand called TIME, as there was in 1987) or to dip several toes in the cool, shady creek or, for that matter, to give up on something more or less proven to be useless and not actually even very delicious--how is it possible to get anywhere important when it's hardly possible to get a simple thing done well?

The point is that endless production of useless artifacts (not actually deserving even that description, for the most part) gets in the way of taking it easy (Walt Whitman called this "loafing"), which is not the same as laziness--ease suggests a light touch: this is important. Ease is a necessary condition for generous reverence (and reverent generosity), a receptive atmosphere in which it's possible to hear the crickets and not choke on the coffee. Very important. Taking is more problematic: at least a few ancient attitudes about it are distinctly negative--grasping after wind, greedily pulling too many fish into your bucket, that sort of thing. But still, taking ease really is entirely different than clawing your way through someone else's wad of cash (keep your hands off of my stash ...).

How long does it take to make something? How long does it take to make something better, even modestly better than average? I'll let you know as soon as I finish this instrument I'm working on. It's the harp/santur that gets mounted on/in the south wall of the earthen cottage I've built here, and it's not done yet. In all honestly, it will probably be done in a couple of weeks, more or less. (Not what you were expecting to hear? thought maybe months, or years?) Not a major burden. Previous instruments have taken me anywhere from two or three weeks to two or three years. My favorite luthier, Fred Carlson, builds about one instrument a year, more or less, as his full-time profession. In his case, the question would be more reasonably, "How long does it take to make something outrageously beautiful?" (A couple of years ago I interviewed Fred about his creative/constructive process--I hope to publish some version of that one of these days, with his permission.)

Americans are famously materialistic about time. That comes from the Puritans, probably, or perhaps from the Germans (who have more descendants in this country than any other group). But that first modern American (though he leaned toward France late in life) old Ben (or Poor Richard or whoever) got it wrong, if he was being serious: time is in fact not money (except perhaps in Berkeley, where the local currency known as BREAD takes an Hour as the basic unit of exchange ... if it's still in existence). Okay, perhaps it is, more or less. But not really. What I mean is, the less time has to be related to money, the more valuable it becomes. Our time is precious especially when it is not being bought and sold. As soon as it's commodified, it flattens--has fewer dimensions, becomes dry and linear, doesn't show you much that's inspiring to your life, to your deepest being.

We try to package our moments, stuff too much into prefabricated cartons, received notions of the right way to do things so often resting on no real authority but convention. Stiff habitual patterns. But the devious winds of the open road scatter all those annoying styrofoam shells every which way, no regard for the best intentions. So take your time and play with it. Have a playful attitude. The only reasonable perspective.
When I was around 12 years old I had a dream of a fantastical horn, a sort of curly shofar-like instrument with two mouthpieces and perhaps a dozen branching, spiraling tubes extending out, up and down. I'm not sure how such an instrument would function in the waking world, but in the dream world I was able to produce immense and complex polyphonic music with it.

Since that time (and perhaps before, though I don't have a distinct recollection) I've had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vivid dreams along these lines. In some I'm in a workshop, or the back room of an out-of-the-way junk shop. In others I'm onstage (perhaps with Miles or Dylan or Mingus--wish fulfillment, you might say), or at a house party or outdoors somewhere, jamming on a horn or stringed instrument--some relatively mundane, some amazingly fantastical. Some of the instruments are ones I own and play in waking life (including, particularly, ones I have made). In any case, there's an ecstatic buzz connected with the experience, which is actually not so different from what it's like in waking life.

I started playing trumpet when I was 10 years old, in school. At times my feeling for the instrument was ambivalent, and I put it down for a year or so on a couple of occasions. When I was 21 or 22 I discovered Don Cherry and felt like I'd stepped into an open field where before I'd been in a tunnel. His use of a pocket trumpet inspired me to pick one up, and I found that the experience of playing it was completely different than the standard trumpet (which I never played again afterward). Functionally everything is the same between the two instruments: they have the same range (same length of tubing, only the pocket trumpet is wound in an extra loop to make it more compact), use the same mouthpiece (though some pocket trumpets use a cornet mouthpiece, which is practically the same but not identical). For me, the crucial difference is not simply the sound--the pocket trumpet actually tends to have a slightly rougher tone, and is slightly harder to keep in tune--but the placement, the location of the sound. With this instrument, I feel like it comes directly out of me--from my gut, my lungs, my lip--instead of something happening at a distance, over there somewhere...

This may seem tangential, but actually it's at the heart of any approach to the idea of sacred space--not just because music has always been associated with every sort of sacred experience (never mind the Taleban--the brutality they promote is the opposite), but because any activity that doesn't bring you into a direct experience has lost the game. Why do kids occasionally act bored? Because they can tell the difference between something happening away from them and something they're inside of. 

This is also fundamental to addressing global warming. Pollution that people experience directly is much more likely to generate action. People have visceral reactions when they witness a sludge-filled river, when the air stinks and their eyes burn, when their children can't breathe. They may feel constrained from resolving the problem (it's beyond their apparent means) but if given an opportunity they're relatively likely to be motivated to do something about it. But global warming occurs at a distance--certainly a displacement in time, if not location. It is not personally immediate. Even highly intelligent, educated, socially engaged people, while they may take the issue seriously, are subject to more immediate concerns--health and economic survival, for example--that will always displace something occurring at a distance. As it becomes closer to direct experience, the motivation will increase.

Direct experience--full engagement with the activity--does not actually require a nonstop high-intensity focus. It requires a steadiness of attention, receptivity, a flexible ability to seep beyond the edges of the linear melody to absorb the overtone resonances that create the fullness of a full sound. It's an interweaving of absorption and agility. Both the particle and the wave. Sometimes one predominates for a moment, but the ability to deeply hear what your fellow musicians are playing and contribute something not just complementary but harmonious in a way that pulls the whole sound beyond the physical constraints of the mundane world, requires a kind of devotion to the act of creation itself. (Not just an expectation of future reward, though that's been known to motivate people up to a point.)

Actually, the gratification is immediate, when everything weaves together in that magical-seeming way. But it takes hours of practice to get there, even for someone who starts out with above-average capacity (a.k.a. talent, which is helpful but not necessarily the deciding factor). According to a currently popular notion, mastery requires ten thousand hours of dedicated practice to reach. Which sounds about right, but the notion does have some flaws (for example, implications that it's applicable to any activity; that "mastery," or expertise, is quantifiable; that there's an identifiable endpoint to development). 

When I was 14 or 15 I started playing guitar. I spent a lot of time with it, and by my mid-twenties I suppose I'd become a passably competent musician, with some rough edges that didn't bother me too much (still don't). By sometime in my thirties I'm sure I'd put in something like ten thousand hours between the horn and guitar, though with all sorts of gaps, so I'm not sure how that adds up. In order to hold my own as a serious professional horn player I'd have to average (by my own estimation) at least four hours a day practicing, and I realized long ago I'm not committed enough to do that. 

But what I'm getting at is a bit different from the notion of mastery. The few times I've held to that sort of intensive practice schedule (for three or four months at a stretch, at most--it's sort of hard to maintain if you happen to be employed in some unrelated way, or if you want to see any friends who aren't also standing next to you on stage or sipping a drink alone at a table halfway across the room--sorry, can't talk right now, gotta boo-dap, bdoo-dap, beetu bweetu battadoo-bdap) I have managed to tap into something that I've also experienced from intensive practice in other activities (martial arts, meditation, luthery, writing and house building, at least). This is an experience of cracking a code, of suddenly (or sometimes gradually) noticing that I have an extra set of ears, a new language, a momentary unnameable connection with the original source of energy and consciousness. That's what I mean by engagement. That's an inkling of the idea of "sacred."

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the craft category.

climate change is the previous category.

displacement is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID